Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1868/2009 of DEVKI NANDAN Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND and OTHERS on 30 December 2009
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1868 OF 2009 (MS) Devki Nandan …………..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ………Respondents. Mr. D.S. Patni & Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. K.P.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND ATNAINITAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 1868 OF 2009 (MS)Devki Nandan
…………..Petitioner.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others.
………Respondents.
Mr. D.S. Patni & Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. G.D. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no. 3 and 4. Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. V.S. Rathor, Advocate for respondent no. 5.
Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Heard Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, Mr. G.D. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no. 3 and 4 and Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. V.S. Rathor, Advocate for respondent no. 5.
The petitioner had filed this writ petition with the following prayer:
“a. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned cancellation order of Character certificate dated 4[th]November 2009 (Annexure No.8 to the writ petition) passed by the District Magistrate Nainital.
b. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant the contract No. 4/Trust/2009-10/Safai and No. 3/Trust/2009-10/Patient care on the basis of lowest bid ignoring the cancellation order dated 4[th] November 2009.
c. Award the cost of writ petition.
d. Any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
The case of the petitioner is that he had deposited a tender in response to an invitation for the same by Forest Hospital Trust, Haldwani, District Nainital. One of the essential tender conditions was that the applicant must deposit a Character Certificate along with his/her application. This Character Certificate was deposited by the petitioner along with his tender. However, on 4[th]November, 2009 the Character Certificate of the petitioner was cancelled. Hence, this writ petition.
Learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 9[th] November, 2009 granted an ad interim relief to the petitioner. Relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:
“Prima facie, this court is of the view that format of the application contains only one column i.e. “As to whether applicant has ever been convicted.” In absence of any column as to whether any criminal case is pending against the applicant, it was not possible for the petitioner to mention about the FIR in question. Moreover, money of provident fund has already been deposited by the petitioner.
Prima facie no show cause notice is found having been issued to the petitioner before issuing the cancellation order. In view of this operation and effect of impugned order dated 04.11.2009 shall remain stayed until further orders of this Court.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that due to subsequent developments in the matter, he does not want to press any other prayer except the order by which Character Certificate of the petitioner has been cancelled. This Court vide order dated 17.12.2009 also directed the State Counsel to furnish the information regarding as to whether while cancelling the character certificate dated 7.9.2009, any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner or not? The State Counsel has submitted a counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated that no opportunity of hearing was indeed given to the petitioner. The reasons assigned therein are that under the circumstances, the opportunity of hearing was not required. This reply does not seem to be satisfactory inasmuch as certain rights had accrued to the petitioner by means of the character certificate granted to him and therefore, before such a character certificate could have been cancelled, principle of natural justice and fair-play demanded that a show cause notice and opportunity of hearing must be given to the petitioner. As such, the order dated 7.9.2009 by which the character certificate of the petitioner was cancelled is hereby quashed.
It is, however, made clear that the concerned authorities who have granted the character certificate to the petitioner are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, in case they have some relevant material for cancellation of such character certificate then after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, they may proceed.
With the aforesaid orders, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 30.12.2009